the rules made by society do not work unnecessary hardship upon him or upon his family. Thus, though to be sure one may not have seen it at first, ease of making a will when one is far away from his lawyer emerges as an element making somewhat less burdensome a soldier's life and death.

Is the Constitution to be construed as containing within its very word the whole of the power given by it to the legislative body entrusted with the carrying out of its expressed purpose?

It must not be forgotten that not every conceivable legislative act can be deemed to be included within even the most liberal con

struction of the war power. Doubtless the legislation must be such as conceivably tends to promote military success. Does this proposed legislation regarding military wills come within this description?

To uphold the constitutionality of the legislation one need not prove affirmatively that it is necessary. It is enough, and more than enough, to prove that it is a not unreasonable mode of attaining the unquestionably constitutional end of securing military success. As regards military wills, is this capable of proof? The answer is given by the practice of both the Romans and the English-both the founders of modern warfare and the founders of American Law.

It may well be asked whether adequate provision for military wills cannot be made by the States severally.

Beyond question each State has a power to deal with this matter in the interest of its residents and in behalf of persons owning immovables within its limits. State legislation must comply with the Fourteenth Amendment, and hence must not make discriminations which are not based upon actual differences; but a discrimination in favor of persons in the military service is based upon an actual difference regarding the opportunity to gain professional advice and to observe formal requisites, not to mention the difference which consists in devotion, whether voluntary or involuntary, to the accomplishment of the purpose of the public in the emergency of war.

Killing a man does not "injure" him in insurance parlance. Interstate Business Men's Accident Association v. Dunn, 198 S. W. Rep. 727 (Ky.)

LIBERTY BONDS AND THE

FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT

By Hon. L. T. McFadden, M. C., from Philadelphia, Pa.

I protest against the economic crimes that are committed in the name of the Federal Farm Loan Act. The farmers and other taxpayers of the United States will be opposed to the tax exemption of Federal Land bank bonds when they know the truth.

In order to violate the law by borrowing more than $10,000, the farmer can sell an undivided interest in his farm to his wife and then they can borrow up to $20,000. If he desires to borrow more than $20,000, the farmer may take in another relatives as a temporary partner and then they can borrow up to $30,000. If he desires to borrow more than $30,000, he may deed an interest to a fourth person and then he is eligible, by the aid of these confederates, to get a loan of $40,000.

Mr. Edward A. Ames, of Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, borrowed $32,000 from the Omaha bank by executing quitclaim deeds to his wife and brother-in-law and sister-in-law, who helped him borrow the money. After the money was obtained they quit-claimed back to him, so that he now owes the bank $32,000. It required less than two months to complete the entire transaction, No revenue stamps were required on the deeds because there were no actual sales. When Mr. Ames began this conspiracy with the Federal land bank in January, 1919, he owed $24,000 on the farm and it drew interest at 5 1-2 per cent. The mortgage was subject to both income tax and local tax and it was not due until March 1, 1922.

On the 6th of March Mr. Ames had completed the entire transaction and had the farm back in his own name, subject to a mortgage of $32,000, for which he had received $30,400 in cash and stock in the Omaha bank for $1,600. He was and is also liable for $1,600 as a personal liability. He now pays the same rate of interest, 5 1-2 per cent He has received no benefit as to reduction of interest and the man who buys the bonds to the amount of $32,000 will be exempt from both local and Federal income tax. The National Government is liable to a loss of several hundred dollars a year on this loan alone because of the tax exemption of bonds. I have the full particulars of this loan as to dates of deeds and all of the details. They were obtained from the records of Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, by Mr. Hugh H. Shepherd, a reliable abstractor of Mason City, Iowa.

Hoyer & Schultz, real estate dealers and speculators, of Fort Dodge, Iowa, by executing six deeds to parts of a swamp in Hamilton County, Jowa, located over 30 miles from their place of residence, succeeded in borrowing $41,300 from the Omaha Federal land bank on 791 acres, a large part of which is covered wth peat and moss and does not raise

LIBERTY BONDS AND THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT 701

either pasture or meadow grass. The fact that no revenue stamps were attached to the deeds, and that they were made out to relatives shows that they represented dummy sales for the purpose of a technical evasion of the law. These lands are a speculative proposition, and the loans are far in excess of what would have been made by reliable private loan men. The full particulars in this case were furnished by Mr. Varick C. Crosley, a reliable abstracter of Webster City, Iowa. I also have a very interesting set of photographs of the land showing the correctness of the reports as to its being a swamp.

I call particular attention to these dummy deals for the purpose of showing that the Ames loan is essentially a $32,000 loan and the Hoyer & Schultz loan is essentially one of $41,300.

Another socialistic bubble, fathered and inflated by the Government, has been saved from collapse only by the powerful stimulant of millions of dollars taken from the National Treasury. In the midst of war, when the Nation was appealing for funds, millions needed for war purposes were taken from the National Treasury and given to the Federal farmloan banks to save the system from disaster.

Yet this system was loudly proclaimed as the one socialistic scheme that would demonstrate the benefits and the beauties of Government ownership and it has.

The purpose of the act creating these banks was declared to be to provide capital for agricultural development, to create standard forms of investments based upon farm mortgages, and to equalize interest rates on farm mortgages. A more correct title would be "An act to tax the American people to give special privileges to a few well-to-do farmers, to furnish the super-rich the most profitable investment in the world, and to give them a legitimate way to escape payment of their income tax, to discredit Government bonds and increase the burden of taxation of the American people."

The Federal land banks are working to get out as big a volume of loans as possible regardless of the letter or spirit of the law. In order to deceive many farm borrowers into going in debt for easy money, they advertise that on a thirty-five-year loan, the interest rate is only three and six-tenth per cent on the money borrowed.

Our enormous war debt, the grinding burden of heavy taxes, and the market price of Liberty bonds are great problems that now slap every citizen in the face. When one taxpayer evades paying taxes, he robs all other taxpayers by that evasion. The most important effect of the Federal Farm Loan act now is that it helps a few taxpayers rob other taxpayers.

Liberty bonds are now below par, some of them down nearly to 94. The Federal Farm Loan board through its agents now advertises $54,000,000 of its bonds at 100 1-2. Liberty bonds are not entirely free from taxation. Land bank bonds are tax-free. Liberty bonds were bought by patriots to help the nation. Land bank bonds are bought by investors to evade taxation. Joint stock land bank bonds are now sell

ing at 102. They are entirely tax-free. They are issued by privately owned banks to furnish money to be used by real estate dealers and farmers for private personal business. There is a big demand for these bonds because the owners do not have to pay war taxes on them. There are twenty-one joint stock land banks, nine of these have been chartered since the first of April of this year. The twenty-one joint stock land banks and the twelve Federal Land banks are thirty-three factories to which rich investors can deliver their taxable securities and have them made over into tax-free land bank bonds. In the rush to avoid war taxes two hundred such institutions are likely to be doing business before the end of this year. There are applications now on file for about

100 more joint stock land banks.

Competition of these tax-free securities can have no other effect but to depress the price of Liberty bonds.

Congress owes its first duty to owners of Liberty bonds.

The bonds of Federal land banks and of joint stock land banks should be subject to taxation the same as other commercial securities.

THE LIVING STREAM.

By T. F. Whittelsey, Washington, D. C.

Across the mountain's deep and cold ravine,

The winter winds are blowing strong and wide,
The drifts are high; no sentient life is seen,

The night grows dark, the stars their beauty hide
But far beneath, concealed from mortal view,

A rushing stream is seeking for the light,
Which soon emerges where the sky is blue,

Its shining torrent sparkling in its flight.

So underneath the outer storms of life,

When ways seem drear and burdens heavy grown,
When sickness binds and other ills are rife,

And friends forsake and leave you all alone,

Remember then the uncomplaining stream,

Within its far-off winding sheet of snow,

Crown Christ as hope of all the things you dream,
And blessings manifold to you will flow.

IMPORTANT TITLE DECISIONS

a

ABSTRACTS REQUIRED.—(Or.) In a suit strictly to foreclose land contract, providing for payment within five years and for delivery of an abstract showing marketable title, the vendors were not in default, merely because they had no title to a strip of land included, where the five years provided for in the contract had not expired, notwithstanding that purchasers had exercised their option to offer payment before that time.-Hawkins v. Rodgers, 179 P. 563.

ABSTRACTS REQUIRED.-(Mo.) The purpose of an abstract of record of the title is not simply to show that the paper title is perfect as it appears of record, but that vendor has actual title. (Per Woodson and Graves, JJ.)—Jamison v. Van Auken, 210 S. W. 404.

ABSTRACTS REQUIRED.-(Mo. App.) Although a contract for the sale of land provided that the vendor should furnish an abstract by a certain day, and that time should be of essence, the purchaser cannot rescind where, before the stipulated time, he waived delivery of the abstract within the time fixed.-Stout v. Edwards, 210 S. W. 128.

Where a contract for the sale of land made time of its essence, the purchaser's waiver of performance as to the time for delivery of an abstract need not be supported by a consideration.-Id.

ABSTRACTS REQUIRED.-(Mo.) Contract requiring vendor to furnish an "abstract showing good merchantable title" does not condemn a title for lack of record evidence, or require a party to accept a title if it is clouded by another title, lien, or incumbrance outside of the record title. (Per Woodson and Graves, JJ.)—Jamison v. Van Auken, 210 S. W. 404.

ABSTRACTS REQUIRED.—(Mo.) Plaintiff vendor, by showing a perfect record title to 1,050 acres covered by contract of sale, and a fee simple title to the remaining 220 acres by adverse possession, under the 10, 24, and 30 years statutes, would show a "good merchantable title," within contract requiring him to furnish an abstract showing such title. (Per Woodson and Graves, JJ.)—Jamison v. Van Auken, 210 S. W. 404.

ADMISSION'S ADVERSE.-(Vt.) Where admissions of one having or claiming title would be admissible against him, they are competent against persons subsequently deriving title through or from him.-Waterman v. Moody, 103 A. 325. Declarations of a former owner, made before he parted with title, are admissible against those claiming under him on any issue relating to title, ownership, or possession which may be proved by parol evidence. Ib.

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.-(Mo. App.) In action on contract for exchange of lands, altered by plaintiff by changing expression, “by first mortgage," to "was first mortgage," in a clause reciting acceptance of secured notes by defendant as part consideration, defendant could show alteration, though he admitted in pleadings execution of contract as pleaded in altered form by plaintiff, and the alteration was not material.Ozias v. Paustian, 209 S. W. 587.

If the payee should

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.—(Mo.) change the amount of the note, the alteration would release the obligors. and a like result would foliow it he should indorse a fictitious credit upon it, and thereby reduce the amount to be paid.-Highland Inv. Co. v. Kansas City Computing Scales Co., 209 S. W. 895.